WI: Interlock device from 2008 BAC refusal proper civil penalty

Refusal of a BAC can legitimately have civil consequences without violating the Fourth Amendment per Birchfield. Here it was a 2008 refusal that led to an interlock in 2013 that was recently violated. State v. Sparby-Duncan, 2026 Wisc. App. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 6, 2026).

Appellant claims fraud on the court in its criminal judgment against him seeking to recall the mandate. But he only alleges he seeks an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for a Fourth Amendment violation. There is no allegation of fraud. United States v. Flack, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 229 (6th Cir. Jan. 5, 2026).*

Plaintiff’s 1983 complaint for false statements in a warrant application fails F.R.C.P. 8 for failing to plead any facts at all. Carr v. Baranek, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1293 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 6, 2026).*

In this forfeiture case, this party has no standing superior to the person from whom it was taken. United States v. Yu-Chieh Huang, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1500 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 5, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Drug or alcohol testing, Forfeiture, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.